North American Tunneling 2004, Ozdemir (ed)

2004 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 90 5809 669 6

Shotcrete for tunnel final linings design and construction considerations

V. Gall & K. Zeidler

Gall Zeidler Consultants, LLC

N. Munfah
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.

D. Cerulli
Parsons Brinckerhoff Construction Services

ABSTRACT: The use of shotcrete for tunnel final linings has gained increased popularity on a national and
international basis. The high quality of the shotcrete material, flexibility in application and workability, as well as
the ability to adapt to complex tunnel geometries have contributed to this popularity. When evaluating if shotcrete
should be utilized as the final tunnel lining, several aspects should be carefully evaluated to determine the final
products quality and durability, as well as cost and construction schedule implications for a given tunnel con-
figuration. Among others, geometric complexity, tunnel length and size, staging of a multi-layered application,
finish requirements and type of waterproofing will play a major role in the decision. This paper establishes and
discusses aspects and criteria that should be considered in the evaluation process for, or against, a tunnel final
shotcrete lining. This discussion is supported using recent case histories, in particular the Pedestrian Walkback
Tunnel at Washington Dulles International Airport in Dulles, Virginia, and the Weehawken Tunnels in New Jersey
for New Jersey Transit to demonstrate the decision process.

1 SHOTCRETE enabled by the use of plasticizers and partial replace-

As reported in many documents, the material shotcrete
has undergone significant developments during the
past decade. Improvements of the material as well as
the application method have been achieved. Intensive
research in the material quality led to a better under-
standing of the interaction between the various con-
stituents of a shotcrete mix, to the development of
a series of new admixtures and better quality control
of cement types. In particular, the use of wet mix
techniques, the development of new low/non alkali
accelerators, water content reducing admixtures and
continuous cement quality resulted in improved final
shotcrete quality. But also the use of fiber reinforce-
ment and high-end concrete pumps and guns have
furthered the shotcrete quality.
The new materials have allowed better slump con-
trol, which did not only contribute to a more steady
flow with the new pumps and therefore continuous
shotcrete application, but much more to a more con-
trolled and uniform compaction and, consequently,
shotcrete density. The reduction of the W/C ratio, now
ment of cement, dramatically reduced the overall pore
volume and, hence, improved the durability of shot-
crete. With the help of the admixtures, the quantity of
rebound was reduced to acceptable values, eliminat-
ing one economic disadvantage of shotcrete.
With todays shotcrete mix designs and application
equipment, high final strengths of up to approxi-
mately 70 MPa (10,000 psi) are achieved in standard
applications.
Together with the use of shotcrete as permanent
support material, requirements for the surface quality
became more demanding. The improved workability,
smaller aggregate grain sizes and better hydration
heat control (cracks) enabled the contractors to satisfy
these requirements. Trowel finished shotcrete surfaces
(Varley 1998, Eddy & Neumann 2003) or architectural
ornamental finishes (Gall et al 1998) are examples for
shotcrete finishes achieved on past projects.
The compressive strength of sprayed concrete is
only an indirect indicator for the shotcrete durability.
Durability and water tightness are intimately inter-
connected. Crack development and dispersion control

215

Figure 1. Trowel finished shotcrete lining.
and the volume limitation of the effective pores reduce
the permeability of shotcrete. Values of 1012 m/sec,
desired minimum values for sufficiently water tight
and durable concrete, are achieved or even surpassed.
If concrete is exposed to groundwater and no water flow
exists across the concrete section, water absorption is
of greater concern than permeability. The control of
the volume of permeable pores within the concrete
section and limitation to a maximum value of 14 to
17%, as recommended by various documents, is
achievable in standard shotcrete applications.
Fibers are not only used to better the behavior of
shotcrete during fire, but also to increase the ductility
of shotcrete and shrinkage crack control and dispersion.
Above improvements combined with the inherent
flexibility of shotcrete application resulted in a high
acceptance of shotcrete within the industry and author-
ities. Shotcrete can be compared to high quality cast-
in-place concrete and, in some fields, even proved to
have superior characteristics.
2 LINING DESIGN PHILOSOPHIES
During the history of tunnel lining designs, different
lining philosophies have been developed. Dependent
on the assumption, whether or not the initial lining
will have sufficient quality and durability under the
project specific conditions, the initial shotcrete lining
has been taken into account for the long-term support,
or has been considered sacrificial. In the latter, a sec-
ondary lining had to carry all expected ground and
groundwater loads in the long term. The different water
tightness criteria implemented at various projects
under specific project conditions led to diverse water-
proofing solutions, including the use of shotcrete for
water tight linings, or the installation of membrane
waterproofing systems sandwiched between initial
and secondary lining.
216
In Europe, various authorities developed their pref-
erences with respect to tunnel waterproofing systems.
For example, most of the railroad and metro authori-
ties in Germany and Austria tend to utilize shotcrete/
concrete to control the desired degree of tunnel water
tightness, while the road and highway authorities pre-
fer membrane waterproofing systems. The decision
whether or not to use and be able to achieve a water
tight concrete/shotcrete is also driven by the project
specific environmental conditions, such as hydrostatic
pressure conditions, chemical attack potential of the
groundwater, and construction complexity.
In some projects, the shotcrete initial lining has been
considered sufficiently durable to withstand the long-
term loads over the design life. The designers of sev-
eral access shafts and stub tunnels for the upgrade
project of London Electricitys power supply network
(London, UK) have opted to use the sprayed concrete
lining, which was placed after excavation, for the long
term support of these structures (Field et al 2000) as
the so called Single Pass Lining. Specially detailed
construction joints and high quality shotcrete were
required to meet the clients water tightness criteria.
Damp patches were acceptable. The lining design
thickness was considered appropriate to provide suf-
ficient long-term stability, even when a certain portion
of the shotcrete lining exposed to ground and ground-
water will degrade.
Similar to the classical two-pass lining systems with
water tight cast-in-place concrete secondary linings,
sprayed concrete has been used in lieu of cast-in-place
concrete. At the Jubilee Line Extension, Contract
C104 London Bridge Station (London, UK), the
complex geometry and alignment of the ventilation
tunnels and the step-plate-junction housing a track
bifurcation instigated the contractor to install a shot-
crete lining on the inside of the initial lining (Varley
1998). The design was based on the assumption that
the initial lining would deteriorate over the years and
would lose its support capacity. The secondary lining
has to carry all ground and hydrostatic loads expected
to act during the design life. The water tightness crite-
ria, where damp patches were permitted, were met by
a high quality, steel fiber reinforced shotcrete and
specially designed construction joints. A finishing layer
of plain, small size aggregate shotcrete was applied to
cover the steel fiber reinforced shotcrete. To meet the
smoothness criteria for the ventilation tunnels, the
finishing layer received a trowel finish. Similar prin-
ciples have been applied at the ventilation chambers
for DARTs City Place Station Project in Dallas, TX
(Ugarte et al 1996).
An early application of composite shotcrete linings
was the lining system installed at the Heathrow Airport
Transfer Baggage System Tunnel (Arnold & Neumann
1995). The shotcrete initial tunnel support was designed
to provide the long-term ground support, while a
secondary layer will provide support to the hydro-
static loads. Both shells are interlocked by a rough,
prepared joint surface and cross reinforcement and
are expected to act as a composite structure with load
sharing between the shells, effectively forming a single
shell lining. Water tightness criteria, a dry tunnel had
to be supplied, were achieved by high quality shot-
crete and the continuous secondary layer of approx.
100 mm (4 in) thickness.
Requirements for the composite function of the
shotcrete layers and the shotcrete product itself have
been identified by, among others, Kusterle & Lukas
(1990) and Kupfer (1990).
The more traditional two-pass lining system, com-
bined with a membrane waterproofing system, is cur-
rently being applied at the Russia Wharf Segment in
Boston, MA for MBTAs Silverline Extension (Zachary
2003). There, the initial shotcrete lining is expected to
deteriorate over time under the onerous environmen-
tal project conditions. A secondary shotcrete lining is
being installed to provide long-term support to full
overburden ground loads, surcharge and hydrostatic Figure 2. Concrete vs. Final shotcrete lining geometry in
loads. A full-round membrane waterproofing system plan and longitudinal section (schematic).
completely wraps the twin tunnels to provide a dry tun-
nel environment and to protect the secondary lining
from potentially adverse groundwater affects. High Project, London, UK (Cox et al 2003). The complex
quality shotcrete is used for the long-term support. geometrical and alignment conditions, as well as the
Similar principles have been applied at WMATAs multiple tunnel junctions and intersections proved cast-
Contract B10, Washington, DC for the construction in-place concrete secondary lining an uneconomical
of the double cross over and ventilation chambers in solution. Hence, the lining system will comprise a steel
the mid 1980s. fiber reinforced shotcrete initial lining, a full round
Detailed design and practical considerations are membrane waterproofing system (for completely dry
described below based on a similar application at the tunnels) and a steel fiber reinforced shotcrete second-
Pedestrian Walkback Tunnel (PWT) at Washington ary lining. Rebar or welded wire fabric reinforcement
Dulles International Airport (Hirsch et al 2003) and may be required around tunnel junctions. Due to the
the Weehawken Tunnel project, in Weehawken, New rather benign environment offered by the surrounding
Jersey (Ott & Jacobs 2003). These also include aspects London Clay and the groundwater contained in it, it
of a layered shotcrete lining application. The PWT is has been decided to take some benefit from the initial
approximately 240 m (800 ft.) long with a springline shotcrete lining for the long-term support. The initial
diameter of ca. 12 m (42 ft.) and features a double lin- lining is not expected to completely deteriorate and
ing system, whereas a continuous PVC waterproof- lose its support capabilities. This is made possible in
ing membrane separates the initial and final linings. part by new shotcrete technologies, producing high-
The Weehawken Tunnel involves the re-construction density shotcrete, steel fiber reinforcement and a bet-
(enlargement) of a 1,269 m (4,156 ft) long, existing ter understanding of the ground and groundwater
railroad tunnel into a two-track light rail tunnel with impact on sprayed concrete.
an underground station and a large passenger access Part of the initial lining is expected to deteriorate
and ventilation shaft. The widening of the tunnel to the over time, while the remaining portion will contribute
station structure comprises a widening from an 8.4 m to the ground support in conjunction with the secondary
(28 ft) wide tunnel to an 18 m (60 ft) wide station tunnel lining. Due to a requirement by the owner, all steel
structure to both sides of the future center platform sta- reinforcement forming parts of the permanent tunnel
tion. Based on a Value Engineering Change Proposal support must be located inside the membrane water-
submitted by the contractor, this transition, designed in proofing system. Therefore, no benefit can be taken
a step plate junction configuration per contract, will be from any steel reinforcement located within the initial
carried out using shotcrete for the arch final lining in a lining. The initial lining is taken into account as mass
bifurcation as shown in plan in Figure 2. concrete material that will contribute to the support in
Another concept of lining design is currently being confinement. The shotcrete secondary lining will, pro-
applied at the Kings Cross Station Redevelopment tected by the waterproofing system, provide the long

217
term support for the hydrostatic loads and the remain-
ing part of ground and surcharge loads. The water-
proofing membrane, sandwiched between the initial
and secondary lining, is expected to permit radial load
transfer only with negligible shear transfer between
the linings.
3 GENERAL APPLICATION CRITERIA
Shotcrete final linings are typically utilized where one
or more of the following conditions are encountered:
The tunnels are relatively short in length and the
cross section is relatively large and therefore invest-
ment in formwork is not warranted, i.e. tunnels of
less than 150250 m (400600 ft) in length and
larger than about 812 m (2535 ft) in springline
diameter.
The access is difficult and staging of formwork
installation and concrete delivery is problematic.
The tunnel geometry is complex and customized
formwork would be required. Tunnel intersections,
as well as bifurcations qualify in this area. Bifurca-
tions are associated with tunnel widenings and would
otherwise be constructed in the form of a step plate
junction configuration and increase cost of exca-
vated material (see Figure 2).
If the above conditions characterize a tunnel struc-
ture then a shotcrete final lining is likely to provide for
flexibility in production, schedule advantages, savings
in formwork and possibly savings in excavation. There-
fore, a detailed shotcrete final lining cost analysis is
warranted.
4 FINAL LINING EQUIVALENCY
CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Structural calculations
Structural calculations for final shotcrete linings follow
the same principles and are based on the same structural
codes as concrete linings. With current high shotcrete
product quality and knowledge of application proce-
dures, shotcrete is internationally viewed as concrete
applied by different placement means. Due to the appli-
cation process however, the reinforcement may, and in
most cases will, be different in a shotcrete applica-
tion. Whereas in a regular concrete section two layers
of rebars at a wide spacing are sufficient, the shot-
crete section will utilize welded wire fabric for better
embedment within the shotcrete and to facilitate the
shotcrete application. Where the loading conditions
for the lining are well established, the same loadings are
used in a structural calculation to arrive at reinforce-
ment needs. Alternatively, equivalency considerations
218
may be applied, equating the given concrete section
and its reinforcement to a proposed new section with
a different reinforcement arrangement. The PWT shot-
crete final lining reinforcement needs were a result of
equivalency considerations, i.e. the reinforced shotcrete
lining had to provide the same capacity as the cast-
in-place concrete lining. An exception was the complex
three-dimensional section between the mechanical
room tunnel and the main tunnel where additional
reinforcement beams were installed at the intersection
along the groin lines (Figure 4).
When considering the application of a final shotcrete
lining, the following aspects should be addressed prior
to acceptance and execution in the field.
4.2 Multi-layered vs. Monolithic
In principle, there is no structural difference between
a sprayed or cast-in-place concrete lining. However,
when the sprayed lining is applied in multiple layers
with distinct time intervals, which include installation
of reinforcing steel, the bond between the different
layers has to be adequate to qualify as a monolithic
member in the structural sense. Limitations and require-
ments are therefore imposed on application sequencing,
curing techniques, cleaning of surfaces and adapted
concrete technology (Hoehn 1999). Keeping the time
lag between shotcrete applications short aids this
process. For verification, minimum tensile and shear
strengths between the layers (in the joint) shall there-
fore be achieved.
For example and to assess the requirements for
these values at the PWT project, finite element calcu-
lations were carried out that considered a representa-
tive three-layer composite system with two joint
surfaces in the final lining section (see Figure 3). The
model investigated the capacity of the 30 cm (12 inch)
layered shotcrete final lining for the long-term condi-
tion, when the initial support is assumed to be deteri-
orated and overburden and live loads are imposed onto
the final shotcrete lining. From this model, minimum
tensile and shear strength requirements in the joints
were derived to be 0.69 MPa (100 psi) and 1.38 MPa
(200 psi) respectively. Hoehn, 1999 for example calls
for minimum values for strength for both tension and
shear of 1.5 MPa (217.5 psi). Kusterle and Lukas, 1990
rather report ranges of values to account for statistical
characteristics of sampling and testing.
A review of these ranges, combined with the fact
that the literature reports 1.5 MPa for tensile strength
as a universal number and the availability of detailed
calculations led to the conclusion that the above min-
imum values for tensile and shear were plausible.
4.3 Testing
Testing requirements for a final lining shotcrete resem-
ble very much those of an initial shotcrete lining,
Figure 3. FE model of shotcrete lining layers.
Figure 4. Shotcrete final lining installation at PWT
intersection.
however with modified requirements, in particular to
test for the bond capacity of the layered shotcrete. The
shotcrete mix design is often developed based on his-
torical data available from the initial lining applica-
tion. At the PWT project pre- and during production
testing requirements involved testing of tensile and
direct shear tests on samples taken from test panels
sprayed according to application and curing condi-
tions resembling the site application, considering that
the full thickness of the final shotcrete lining was
to be achieved in panels not to exceed 10 m (30 ft)
in length. Tensile strength was tested according to
ACI 506R, whereas the shear tests were carried out
according to Michigan DOTs shear test. Minimum
test requirements were as per the above, 0.69 MPa
(100 psi) for tensile and 1.38 MPa (200 psi) for shear
219
Figure 5. Final lining shotcrete application at PWT.
strength. During pre-construction, testing time inter-
vals between applications of 24-hours and 72-hours
were tried and led to strength developments yielding
a minimum of 2 MPa (290 psi) in tensile strength and
4.70 MPa (680 psi) in shear after ten days. During con-
struction, a total of four tests with two samples each
were required for the entire tunnel, again time lag and
application to simulate application and site conditions.
The minimum tensile strength developed at three days
was recorded as 0.8 MPa (116 psi), with an average of
1.47 MPa (213 psi). The minimum shear strength at
three days was 5.03 MPa (730 psi), with an average of
6.83 MPa (990 psi). Therefore, test results showed that
the minimum bonding requirements of the composite
final shotcrete layer were well achieved by the selected
construction process. Application of the shotcrete final
lining is shown in Figure 5.
4.4 Waterproofing and contact grouting
The use of a dedicated waterproofing layer between
the initial and final shotcrete linings creates a de-
bonding effect. The degree of de-bonding depends on
the type of waterproofing selected. In particular when
using a loosely laid, continuous, flexible membrane
type waterproofing (PVC) for complete water tight-
ness (Gall 2000), special attention has to be given to
membrane attachment, reinforcement installation and
to contact grouting. A frequent use of attachment disks
will achieve a tighter fit of the membrane to the initial
shotcrete lining and reduce the amount of void space
otherwise created by sagging membrane sections. For
the spraying of shotcrete against the membrane, a
carrying layer of welded wire fabric will be required.
Spacers may be used between the welded wire fabric
and the membrane to push the membrane further
against the initial shotcrete lining. Despite these mea-
sures, a void space will exist between the membrane and
the initial shotcrete lining. For proper contact between
the initial and final shotcrete linings, systematic con-
tact grouting is essential. This contact grouting, unlike
the one in roof sections in cast-in-place final lining
installations, is not limited to roof sections only, but a
radial and more frequent distribution of grouting ports
and pipes around the lining perimeter should be con-
sidered for this purpose. By injecting low viscosity
cementitious grouts between final shotcrete lining
and the membrane will assure a tight contact between
the initial and final lining.
Where water barriers have been utilized for the
purpose of enhanced membrane repair (compartmen-
talization) a re-injectable grouting hose should be
installed in the centerline of the barrier, between the
ribs. Injection of grout through this hose will assure a
tight embedment and contact between the ribs and
shotcrete, and thus prevent leakage water to migrate
across water barrier ribs.
4.5 Surface finish
There are various aspects of surface finish require-
ments that strongly depend on the tunnels intended
use. These include, but are not limited to, reflectivity
(in vehicular tunnels), ease of maintenance (wash-
able), smoothness (in ventilation tunnels), appearance
(general), and frost resistance (exposure to cold cli-
mates). For all of the special applications solutions
exist and include screeding and trowel finishing, use
of special mix shotcrete, and very fine aggregates for
the finishing layer, yielding surface finishes that, by
appearance and function, very well compete with the
cast-in-place concrete. However, such surface finishes
are often not required and omission of special fin-
ishes provides for further economy. At the PWT, for
example, an internal architectural finish will be used.
Therefore only limited requirements for the surface
were established for ease of maintenance and facilitate
installation of embedments and a flatness/smoothness
criterion, which called for a deviation of not more than
2.5 cm (1 inch) in 1.5 m (5 ft.), was established.
4.6 Fire resistance
Recent fire incidents, in particular in European tunnels,
have initiated numerous investigations in adequate
220
fire testing and the improvement of the fire resistance
of concrete and sprayed concrete. One prime element
contributing to spalling and subsequent section thick-
ness loss has been identified: The free water contained
within the concrete section leads, when evaporating
due to rapidly increased temperatures, to explosive
spalling of the concrete. Tests have proven that the
addition of microfilament fibers to the shotcrete mix
significantly improves the fire resistance of shotcrete.
The fibers melt under the influence of heat and pro-
vide escape channels for the vapor, allowing the pres-
sure to dissipate (Tatnall 2002). A detailed review of
fire resistance needs at the Weehawken Tunnel led to
the application of 1.9 kg/m3 (3 lbs/cy) of microfilament
fibers for the inner 10 cm (4 inch) of the shotcrete final
lining in transition sections.
4.7 Method statement/application procedures
Probably the most important factor that will influence
the quality of the shotcrete application is workmanship.
While the skill of the shotcrete applying nozzlemen
(by hand or robot) is at the core of this workmanship,
it is important to address all aspects of the shotcreting
process in a method statement. This method statement
becomes the basis for the application procedures, the
applicators and the supervisions Quality Assurance/
Quality Control (QA/QC) program. Minimum require-
ments to be addressed in the method statement are as
follows:
Execution of Work (Installation of Reinforcement,
Sequence of Operations, Spray Sections, Time Lag)
Survey Control and Survey Method
Mix Design and Specifications
QA/QC Procedures and Forms (Pour Cards)
Testing (Type and Frequency)
Qualifications of Personnel
Grouting Procedures
5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Based on general trends in the application of shot-
crete for final linings and as demonstrated on recent
case histories, it is apparent that shotcrete presents a
viable alternative to traditional cast-in-place concrete.
The product shotcrete fulfills cast-in-place concrete
requirements, or sometimes can even surpass those.
Design and engineering, as well as application proce-
dures, can be planned such as to lay the basis for a high
quality product. However, excellence is needed in the
application itself. Skilled nozzlemen have to ensure
a high degree of workmanship through formalized
training, experience and quality assurance during
application.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge several firms
and individuals for the information that forms the
basis for the two projects discussed in detail. The
Pedestrian Walkback Tunnel: Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority (Project Owner), Parsons Manage-
ment Consultants (Construction Manager). The
Weehawken Tunnel: New Jersey Transit Authority
(Project Owner, Mr. Anthony Murtah, Mr. Ty
Dickerson), Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas
(Prime Design Consultant), and Frontier-Kemper/
Shea/BuM Joint Venture (Contractor, Mr. Vincent
Sambrato, Mr. Leon Jacobs).
REFERENCES
Arnold, J. & Neumann, Ch. 1995: Umsetzung eines innova-
tiven NT-Konzeptes im Zuge eines Know-how-
Transfers. Felsbau 13 (1995), No.6, 459563.
Cox, R., Dulake, Ch. & Eddie, C. 2003: Complex redesign
for London link. Tunnels and Tunnelling International,
Vol. 35, No. 4, April 2003, 5052.
Eddie, C. & Neumann, Ch. 2003: LaserShell leads the way
for SCL tunnels. Tunnels and Tunnelling International,
Vol. 35, No. 6, June 2003, 3842.
Field, G., Legge, N. & Liew, B.S. 2000: Optimizing Shaft
Design and Construction Using Sprayed Concrete. Our
World in Concrete & Structures, Proc. 25th Anniversary
Conference, Singapore.
Gall, V., Zeidler, K., Predis, T. & Walter, J. 1998:
Rehabilitation concepts for brick lined tunnels in urban
areas. Tunnels and Metropolises, Proc. World Tunnel
Congress Sao Paulo, Vol. 1, 539546, Rotterdam.
221
Gall, V. 2000: Three Pillars for an Effective Waterproofing
System. Proceedings, North American Tunneling 2000,
Boston, Massachusetts, June 611, 2000.
Hirsch, D., Moran, P. & Patel, A. 2003: Tunneling Under
Washington Dulles International Airport. Proceedings,
Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference 2003,
648656.
Hoehn, K. 1999: The Single-Shell Shotcrete Method
Applied at Two Tunneling Sites Concrete Technology
and Economic Viability. Proceedings, Spritzbetontech-
nologie 99, BMI 1/99, 255270.
Kupfer, H. & Kupfer, H. 1990: Statical Behavior and Bond
Performance of the Layers of a Single Permanent Tunnel
Lining, Proceedings, Spritzbetontechnologie 90, 11f.
Kusterle, W. & Lukas, W. 1990: High-Grade Shotcrete for
the Single Permanent Shotcrete Lining Method, Proceed-
ings, Spritzbetontechnologie 90, 2940.
Ott, K. & Jacobs, L. 2003: Design and construction of the
Weehawken Tunnel and Bergenline Avenue Station.
Proceedings, RETC 2003, 936946.
Schreyer, J. 1999: Constructive and Economical Sugges-
tions for the Lining of Single Shell Tunnels. Proceedings.
Spritzbetontechnologie 99, BMI 1/99, 271281.
Schwarz, J. 1999: Structural Design and Quality Assurance
of the Joint between Outer and Inner Layer when Using
the Single Shell Shotcrete Lining Method. Proceedings.
Spritzbetontechnologie 99, BMI 1/99, 237240.
Tatnall, P. C., Shotcrete in Fires: Effects of Fibers on Explo-
sive Spalling. Shotcrete, Vol. 4, No. 4, Fall 2002, 1012.
Ugarte, E., Gall, V. & Sauer, G. 1996: Instrumentation and
its Implications DART Section NC- 1B, City Place
Station, Dallas, TX. Proceedings, North American Tun-
neling 96, April 2124, 1996.
Varley, N. 1998: Concrete tunnel linings at London Bridge.
Concrete, Feb. 1998, 13f.
Zachary, W. 2003: The Cold War: Bostons Uncommon Dig.
AUA News, Vol. 18, #3, 911.